Friends,
This section, 'Fundamental principles of a livable world'
turned out to be a biggee - weighing in at nearly 5,000
words. Many threads come together in this section and the
synergy between them was well worth developing. Every
piece of the revolution interacts here - the goals, the
organizing principle, the movement structure, and the
victory strategy.
For those who have been pointing out gaps, I hope this
indicates how they are going to be remedied. For those
waiting to see solutions, I hope you can find value in these
proposals. Any feedback will be to the benefit of future
readers, as this is an evolving work in progress.
I'm submitting this material at this time to New Dawn
Magazine, as an article for their next issue. Some people
on these lists have expressed distress at some of the material
New Dawn publishes. Personally, I think their editorial
policy is a bit tongue in cheek. But in any case, my main
concern is to reach the audience. I'd even let Time
Magazine publish my stuff - and you can't find a more
reprehensible venue that that.
regards,
rkm
============================================================================
A GUIDEBOOK: HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND HOW WE CAN CHANGE IT
(C) 2001, Richard K. Moore
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/
Chapter 2:
What kind of world do we want?
a. Globalization: crisis and opportunity
b. The Moment of Global Convergence
===> c. Fundamental principles of a livable world
d. Localism, diversity, and genuine democracy
e. Sustainability and its political implications
f. Decentralized sovereignty and global stability
g. Human evolution and the liberation of the spirit
---------------------------------------------------------
2.c. Fundamental principles of a livable world
"Moderation in all things."
- classical Greek wisdom
It would be easy for me to write down a description of my own
personal utopia, or to wish for a world in which everyone has
magically become enlightened and public spirited. It is much
more difficult to come up with a vision that can appeal to
all segments of the world population, and which accepts that
people are unlikely to change their basic natures or beliefs
in the near future. It is even more difficult to make that
vision one which is coherent and which lays the foundations
for a system that will work effectively in practice.
In order to approach this challenge, we will first seek to
identify a few fundamental principles which we can hope
everyone could agree to. We will then investigate the
implications of these principles, to find out how they might
be implemented in practice, and what kind of world that would
lead to. In this investigation, we will look at historical
precedents and we will employ some simple principles of
systems analysis. The investigation will be bound by a great
many constraints, such as the finiteness of resources and the
diversity of existing human societies.
Let me first list the general principles and then explain
what I mean by them:
* Personal liberty
* A voice for everyone in society's governance
* Decentralization
* Harmonization instead of factionalism
* Economic vitality
* Sustainability
* World peace
Personal liberty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Within the limits of respecting the liberty and welfare of
others, every individual should be free to pursue their lives
more or less as they see fit. If they choose to submit
themselves to the dictates of a religion, to cultural
traditions, or whatever, then so be it - but such choices
should be voluntary.
No single principle, however, can be interpreted in isolation
- each must be kept in balance with the others. 'Personal
liberty' does not mean that a community has no right to
prohibit anti-social behavior, according to local cultural
norms. Nor does it mean that an individual can choose to do
sit around all day, and then demand that society support
them. Personal liberty must be balanced against personal
responsibility, and it must be kept in reasonable harmony
with the welfare of society.
At the same time, the principle of personal liberty serves to
counter-balance an excessive application of other principles.
In China, large numbers of people have been forced against
their will to work on agricultural labor crews, so as to
fulfill the government's economic objectives. And in the
United States, men have frequently been forced against their
will to fight in imperialist wars, on the pretext of
'defending' national interests. The principle of 'personal
freedom' aims to protect the individual against such
excessive intrusions by society-at-large, and from any
'tyranny of the majority'. In a livable world, society may
protect itself from anti-social individuals, but it does not
seek to accomplish its objectives through coercion. A livable
society is _for the people, not _over the people.
A voice for everyone in society's governance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A livable society is not only _for the people, but also _of
the people. Our current societies have a pretense of
'representation' but that does not in practice provide a
voice for the people. We get candidates who sell themselves
on television, debating 'issues' which have little relevance
to essential matters - and then when they're in office they
ignore their constituencies and devote their energies to
promoting the corporate neoliberal agenda. This may be less
true in local elections, but it is very true at the top
levels, where the big decisions are made.
Our supposedly 'opposing' political parties go to great
lengths to convince us that they differ in their
philosophies, but in practice the 'bipartisan' corporate
program is what gets implemented, regardless of who gets
elected. When it comes down to it, what could we expect from
a system where the only input from the people is an 'X' every
four years, next to the name of one personality or the other?
How could that possibly convey the will of the people?
The word 'democracy' comes from the Greeks, who were the
first to study governmental structures in a systematic way.
Their basic categories of governance were 'aristocracy',
'tyranny', and 'democracy'. In fact, these three are all
forms of tyranny, as far as the the man in the street is
concerned. The only difference between them is who
administers the regime. With 'tyranny' it is a self-appointed
dictator; with 'aristocracy' it is a property-owning class;
with 'democracy' it is some party which has convinced voters
that it is less-objectionable than the alternative parties.
The literal translation of the Greek dêmokratia, 'rule by the
people', is basically a good idea. But the implementations of
'democracy', starting with the Greeks, have emphasized the
'rule' and left out the 'people'. In fact, electoral politics
always becomes a game of power-brokers and demagogues,
leading to a tyranny of the majority - which really means
tyranny by the party that best succeeded in fooling the
electorate.
For 10,000 years our lives have been increasingly dominated
by hierarchies. After such long-term subjugation it may be
scary to think of running society ourselves. But who else
should we trust instead? Even if your answer is "God", then
it is up to _you to represent her wisdom in the body politic.
With the dawning of the 21st Century, it is time for humanity
to grow up and take responsibility for itself. We are now 21.
There are many precedents, both historical and current, which
provide effective models for involving people in the
decisions that affect their lives - for putting
responsibility where it belongs. These models are based on
the harmonization of interests, rather than on competition
among political parties and societal factions. And they are
models which begin the problem-solving process at the local
level - not in the halls of some remote central government.
Decentralization
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In a livable society, local communities should be able to
make the decisions that affect them directly. Why should
someone else tell them how to live their lives, how late they
can keep their pubs open, or what kind of schools they can
run for their children? Why should that be the business of
anyone outside the community? There have been cases, to be
sure, where local minorities have been suppressed, and
central governments have come to their rescue. But in a
livable society, where everyone has an effective voice in
their communities, there should be little need for that kind
of central interventionism.
And again, this principle needs to be balanced against
others. A community cannot pollute the water source of other
communities, nor can it be allowed to squander its resources
recklessly - forcing its people eventually to make demands on
the resources of others. And the community cannot be allowed
to violate the liberty of its citizens, to ignore their
political voice, or to use its children as free labor instead
of giving them an education.
There are clearly problems that need to be dealt with on a
larger scale than a single community, and there are problems
that can only be dealt with on a global basis. But in a
livable society, decisions are made locally whenever
possible, and larger-scale decisions are made in
participation with those affected. In our societies today,
decisions by unaccountable centralized bureaucracies have
become the _primary means by which society is run. In a
livable society the power-and-responsibility pyramid is
turned the other way around.
Consider how the international postal system operates. Each
nation has full sovereignty over how it delivers mail, and
what kind of post-office system it wants to set up. There is
no centralized global postal authority which has jurisdiction
over the internal operations of national postal systems. All
nations (except in time of conflict) have always agreed to
deliver the mail passed on to them by other nations - based
entirely on mutual benefit and trust. The Internet works the
same way. Each Internet provider is like a local post office,
and the providers voluntarily collaborate in the exchange of
mail - based on mutual benefit and trust. The international
rail system is yet another familiar example.
The Internet, and these international infrastructure systems,
are examples of _decentralized, non-hierarchical systems_.
Because they are based on mutual benefit, each party can
trust the others to implement their part of the transactions
- in whatever manner best suits them. As these examples
prove, such a system can be very reliable, and it can evolve
over time as new circumstances arise. The administrative
burden is decentralized, where it can be more efficiently
optimized for local conditions. The overall administration
overhead is less than in a centralized system; administration
is closer to its users; and different societies can choose to
have different qualities of local service, depending on what
they can afford and what their needs are. In a decentralized
system, unresponsive and inflexible bureaucracies are
minimized.
In addition to these many advantages, decentralized systems
provide something even more important - they facilitate
innovative evolution. Let's suppose that Sweden develops an
appropriate-tech mail sorter that is more energy efficient
than those used anywhere else. Very soon, other nations will
emulate Sweden, perhaps modifying or refining the design in
the process. In a centralized system, the research &
development function is also centralized, and innovation is
constrained through a narrow pipeline. In a decentralized
system, each party can take risks on their own with new
ideas, and if they fail, no one else need emulate them.
In a livable world, decentralized systems are to be
preferred, wherever they can be successfully employed.
Besides their advantages in terms of system performance, such
systems provide a political benefit: they transfer
responsibility and control to the lowest possible level, in
many cases to the local community itself. To the extent that
liberty and responsibility can be successfully combined and
concentrated at the community level, we can hope to achieve a
livable, humane, world - where everyone's voice is expressed
and listened to. Such a society would be very well ordered,
but that order would be a harmony of individual voices, not
the regimented order imposed by a central government.
Sidebar: Decentralization and the movement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A decentralized model is also ideal for the movement
we are now building. People are involved in all
kinds of networks already, whether they be community
organizations, professional associations, churches,
or whatever. Some of these are currently activist,
such as the NRA or the Sierra Club. All of them are
_potentially activist, whenever the conditions
become right. If we attempt to build a new
super-movement, and hope to recruit everyone to its
banner, then we are going against the momentum of
bonds and alliances which have already been built.
Besides, such a super-movement would be a move
toward a centralized paradigm, in this case
'ideological centralization'. In ideas, as in
technology, local diversity facilitates overall
societal evolution.
I suggest that what we need is not a new movement
_organization, but rather a new organizing
_paradigm. We need to find ways to get groups of
people to listen to one another, and to discover
that they are - on all sides - mostly sincere people
trying to make life better for their families. Once
people, and groups, can communicate beyond their
differences, and begin to find what they have in
common, then they can begin to find consensus
solutions to the problems that face them in their
lives. One person might be a bio-ethical vegetarian,
and another an avid hunter, yet they might both
agree that corporate power is ruining their
livelihoods. We need to embrace a paradigm of
inclusiveness, and of systematic consensus building.
The paradigm is itself decentralized - the
harmonization process can begin anywhere and
everywhere, by diverse methods and with varying
success - and without any central organization.
The _growth of the movement is simply the spread of
this harmonization process throughout the global
society. The _progress of the movement is the
evolutionary process by which harmonization
techniques are refined, and higher-levels of
movement coordination become possible. The _victory
of the movement will occur when the entire global
society has been mobilized, and when it is capable
of taking decisive and coordinated action everywhere
at once, without any central authority, and without
allegiance being sworn to any single ideology or
religion.
Harmonization instead of factionalism
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our current political systems are based on competition among
societal factions. Different factions (workers, gun owners,
stock brokers, ethnic minorities, etc.) each identify their
own interests, and then they compete in various ways to
promote their interests in preference to those of other
groups. Political parties seek to enlist the support of these
factions, and then the parties go on to repeat the factional
competition in our legislative bodies. In practice, the
societal factions are betrayed - the parties follow the
agenda of a tiny super-rich minority instead of listening to
their electoral constituencies. Politics in the Roman
Republic degenerated into 'bread and circuses', and that has
been the story of 'democracy' ever since. But even if the
competitive system worked as it is ideally supposed to work,
it would still be a very dysfunctional system.
Consider the decision-making process that is followed in our
legislatures - some call it "Parliamentary Process" and other
call it "Robert's Rules of Order". Under this system,
discussion continues until some faction feels that it has
assembled a majority for its proposal. A vote is then called,
and if a majority assents, the matter is settled and debate
is ended. The focus is not on discussing problems, listening
to alternatives, and working out solutions. Instead, the
parliamentary process provides a forum where deal-makers try
to assemble support for prepackaged partisan proposals.
It is no surprise that such a system does a poor job at
solving societal problems. The problems of our society are
complex, and coming up with solutions requires that all
relevant considerations be taken into account. Instead, each
party proposes narrowly conceived solutions, based on its own
partisan perspective, and designed to provide relative
advantage to its own constituency. This process is not
conducive to generating effective solutions. The relevant
information is simply not being taken into account.
Consider the story of the blind men and the elephant. None
could see the whole elephant, and each got a different
impression depending on which part of the elephant they could
touch. Our societal problems are like that elephant, and our
politicians are like those blind men. What the blind men need
to do, in the case of the elephant, is to talk to one another
and compare their observations. What our politicians need to
do is listen to one another, and come up with solutions that
work for society generally. But our system is not set up that
way - the politicians (with some notable exceptions) perceive
their role as promoting one set of interests over another.
Thus our societal problems, like the elephant, are only
partially understood and partially addressed - even when the
system works ideally and without corruption.
A livable society cannot afford to entrust its governance to
such a dysfunctional system. When people come together to
make decisions, whether locally or on a larger-scale basis,
society needs its problems to be addressed collaboratively,
with all relevant information taken into account, leading to
solutions which harmonize the interests of the various
constituencies.
There are proven processes which facilitate this kind of
collaborative harmonization, and they are not at all like the
parliamentary process. Instead of debate, they emphasize
listening. Instead of focusing on partisan solutions, they
focus on understanding the problems, and identifying the
kinds of outcomes different people would like to achieve.
These are creative, problem-solving processes, where people
learn from one another, and solutions are developed which
none of the participants anticipated. Furthermore, the
processes help build a sense of community, and help develop a
cooperative spirit generally among those who participate.
Such processes, I suggest, are the appropriate political
processes for a livable society. In Section 2.d, we will
investigate how this can work in practice, and how it can
scale up to handle the problems of large societies, and to
handle global problems. What it leads to is an overall
process of global harmonization, rather than the development
of competing factions and competing nations. And instead of
decision-making by central bureaucracies, it leads to
decisions which arise from the people themselves, the best
ideas spreading and evolving.
Harmonization processes are in widespread use, and one the
biggest markets for them is within corporate organizations,
where they might be called 'team-effectiveness workshops', or
'organizational-effectiveness seminars'. Such processes have
been used successfully in movement organizing efforts and, as
I have suggested above, such processes are likely to evolve -
as the movement develops - into a refined and effective means
of collective deliberation and action. As the movement learns
to pursue harmonization in a systematic way, it will develop
the very political processes that will be needed by the
post-capitalist society.
Economic vitality
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A healthy society cannot exist without a healthy economy.
Under capitalism, we tend to think of 'the economy' as being
employment figures, stock market levels, and interest rates.
In fact, the 'economy' is everything you and I do, each day,
as we make a living, and acquire the things we need. The
economy is the sum total of the ways people interact, as they
carry out their business in life. An economy is healthy -
vital - when people's work is directed toward things that are
needed by society - when supply and demand are allowed to
interact naturally and directly. People, out of their own
self-interest, generally seek to maximize their economic
reward for the work they do. A 'vital' economy is one where
economic rewards are closely linked to societal benefit. In
that way, the economy naturally facilitates the welfare of
everyone, with little need for central coordination. That, by
the way, is precisely what Adam Smith was seeking to
accomplish.
Under capitalism, most people maximize their economic reward
by taking a job in a corporation for a salary. Their work
then serves whatever agenda the corporation might have in
mind. Instead of work being linked to societal benefit, work
is linked to corporate profitability. To the extent that
corporate prosperity benefits society, then the system works
well enough. It worked well enough, in fact, that most
Westerners were happy with the system up until neoliberalism
raised its ugly head. It is now abundantly clear that a
capitalist economy is ultimately an unhealthy economy - it
directs people toward work which pollutes our environment,
wastes our resources, and which fails to meet the basic needs
of most of the world's people. Under capitalism, economic
reward is separated from societal benefit, and the pursuit of
economic gain becomes ultimately an anti-social force.
A livable society, given our finite resources, cannot afford
capitalism's wastefulness. We need economic arrangements
which take into account the fact that our children will need
to live after us, and which don't reward farmers for
poisoning our food and depleting our topsoil. We need a
fair-competition marketplace, with effective measures to
prevent speculation and the emergence of monopoly operators.
We need to structure our monetary and financial system so
that it facilitates market competition and encourages the
development of healthy businesses. Instead of giant private
banks, whose only objective is maximizing their returns, we
need something more like the credit-union model, where funds
are available locally at rates that enable businesses to
develop without a punitive debt burden. We need to remove the
artificial 'growth imperative' by which capitalism has
infected our economies. Societies benefit from stable,
profitable businesses, rather than businesses which must grow
and exploit in order to survive at all.
Under such conditions, competitive markets can be a very
effective way to achieve a healthy, vital economy. There are
some cases, however, where other economic models have a role
to play as well. Highway systems, for example, are best
managed by public agencies, as they are in most of parts of
the world already. The actual work might be contracted out to
efficient private operators, but the infrastructure should be
managed so as to serve society generally, rather than to line
the pockets of a private owner. Co-ops are another useful
model, provided they are not allowed to grow into exploitive
monopolies. Competitive markets, societal management, and
co-ops are all available in our 'toolkit for a healthy
economy'. Which to apply in each case depends on
circumstances, and on the preferences of those affected.
Sustainability
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whatever definition of 'livable world' we might come up with,
I think it is safe to say that all of us want to build a
system that will last - a system that can be sustained over
time. Why would we squander our rare Moment of Convergence on
building something that will fall apart and cause a crisis
for our grandchildren? I suggest that _sustainability is a
principle we can all agree must be observed a livable world.
This means that we need to move as rapidly as possible to
harvesting methods which don't take more trees or fish than
nature can replace. It means we need to adopt agricultural
methods and livestock practices which do not deplete the
water tables or the soil bank. Sustainable methods require
more labor than industrial methods, but labor is something we
have an abundance of in this over-populated world of ours.
Labor-intensive, sustainable agriculture can produce as much
food as the industrial alternative, and it can do so using
organic practices. In addition to providing increased
employment, and using less water and energy, such methods
avoid the need for expensive pesticides (which are made from
non-renewable resources) and the food is healthier for those
who eat it.
Achieving sustainability will be a major societal project.
Under capitalism, our economies have become dependent on
excessive long-distance food transport, on extensive use of
automobiles, and on similar extravagances that are not
sustainable - but which cannot simply be abandoned
all-at-once. There needs to be a well-orchestrated transition
program, in which current systems are gradually phased out,
and new sustainable infrastructures are developed and
established. This transition program will in fact be a major
development project, and it may require the use of a
considerable portion of our remaining fossil fuels. Obviously
we want to keep green-house emissions to a minimum, but what
better use of our last fossil fuel, than to build
energy-efficient systems that don't depend on non-renewable
sources?
In the literature today, there is already a considerable
understanding of ecosystems, sustainable methods, and
energy-efficient technologies. Considerable work has been
done as well into sustainable economic systems, using a
different basis for issuing money and credit than under the
capitalist system. There is little doubt that adequate
solutions can be developed once they become high-priority
societal projects. After the victory of the movement, we will
still have all of our professionals, scientists, experts,
etc.
There is one aspect of sustainability that often goes
overlooked in these kinds of discussions, and that is
_political sustainability. How can we maintain the spirit of
the Moment of Convergence? How can we create stable
institutions and structures which nurture global harmony and
collaboration? How do we balance the needs and desires of the
individual, the community, and the society-at-large? Do we
want a centralized world government, or do we want a world
community - of cooperating, sovereign nations? In either
case, how can we prevent some aggressive faction from seizing
power somewhere, and starting a new cycle of conflict and
empire building?
These are some of the questions we will be dealing with in
the remainder of this chapter.
World peace
^^^^^^^^^^^
I doubt if anyone would disagree that a livable world must be
a world without war. But, we must admit, humanity has been at
war nearly continuously, in one part of the world or another,
for thousands of years: Is it _possible to achieve lasting
peace? Is war perhaps inherent in human nature, if there is
such a thing? I'd like to suggest some reasons why the
achievement of a stable peace may not be nearly so difficult
as it might first appear.
Let's consider the history of the major Western European
powers - Germany, France, Great Britain, and Italy. For
centuries, up until 1945, these powers were at war time and
time again, with all sorts of shifting alliances and
balance-of-power games. Competition for markets and
territories continued even during intervals of peace, and the
next war was always brewing on the horizon. World War I was
supposed to be the 'war to end all wars', but nothing had
really changed, and World War II followed only twenty years
later with even greater ferocity.
But after World War II, something entirely new and different
happened. As Europe recovered from this particular war, it
began to build a cooperative framework instead of rushing to
rearm and enter a new cycle of conflict. After only a few
years the idea of war between these powers had become nearly
unthinkable, it is still unthinkable today, and there is
little reason to expect this to change in the near future.
This example proves rather conclusively that a cycle of
perpetual warfare _can be broken, and that a successful
cooperative regime _can come suddenly into existence. And in
this case, the reasons for the transformation are easy to
understand.
What European powers had been fighting about, at least for
the last century or two, had been their empires - their
spheres of influence. After each war there were minor
adjustments of European borders, but the basic map of the
four major powers has remained recognizable. The wars were
wars of competition over empire, rather than wars of mutual
conquest per se. What brought peace to Western Europe after
Word War II was a shift in the nature of imperialism, brought
about under firm U.S. leadership.
Whether Europe liked it or not, Uncle Sam had decided to
claim and defend the exclusive right to manage global
geopolitical affairs. In this endeavor, America employed both
carrots and sticks. The Marshall Plan, NATO, the UN, and the
Bretton Woods institutions were carrots - they gave Europe
positive reasons to enter into collaborative arrangements.
America's willingness to deploy fleets worldwide in support
of imperialism (Pax Americana) was also a carrot, in that it
relieved Europe of that burden. But when Britain and France
launched the Suez invasion, then America made it clear that
coercion would be used if the carrots didn't do the job.
Europe was persuaded and coerced into engaging in a
cooperative system of imperialism, and to leave competitive
imperialism behind.
Once imperialism had become a cooperative venture, then there
was no particular reason for European powers to fight one
another. Instead, the advantages of cooperation came to the
fore - pooling their coal resources, reducing their mutual
tariffs, and evolving toward an integrated Europe. Once the
cooperative regime got a good start, it became
self-stabilizing, and in every year that passed, war became
less and less a possibility among these powers.
I suggest that we can expect this same kind of transformation
on a global scale following our Moment of Global Convergence.
After World War II, the USA took advantage of the postwar
desire for peace, and used that energy to establish the UN
and the Bretton Woods institutions. Similarly, we will need
to build on the post-victory spirit of cooperation, and
establish cooperative programs of exchange and development
among our new societies. In this way we can hope to build a
momentum for cooperation that will self-stabilize and evolve
further, as happened so successfully in Western Europe after
1945.
--------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================================
Share: